Appalling Stats

[Jack Maguire]

I posted the "ugly" zero for 33 U10 stat in another thread but I think the topic warrants its own discussion here. And I intentionally use stats rather than stat for reasons to be soon explained. The U8 Section of this year's Grand Prix I had a whopping 59 first timers with just 2 of those same 59 turning up Sunday for their free gift from Santa. That, of course, means the composite U8/U10 Sections rate of Grand Prix I first timers returning to the Grand Christmas Tournament was an appalling 2/92.

Both those numbers, the numerator and the denominator if you will, concern me greatly and are the reasons I've gone with the plural 'Stats'. The former concerns me for its smallness and the latter for its bigness. Let me expound upon my concern for that 92 number. There was a time when any CMA teacher worth his/her salt refused to hand out tournament invitations to beginners, especially the rank beginners, whom the CMA refers to as 'Pawns'. I remember a teacher I greatly respect getting in a heated argument with another teacher why it was "morally wrong" to give tournament invitations to Pawns. Unfortunately, many of those same recalcitrant teachers, including the one I reference, are no longer with the CMA, albeit almost certainly for reasons other than their refusal to hand out tournament invitations to inappropriate recipients.

Sadly, the CMA, is now actively seeking out those same Pawns for their tournament play. Despite Larry telling me in 2013 that a Grand Prix event was not a good tournament for a first timer (never mind a Pawn!) the Toronto promotional Grand Prix I flyer highlighted the fact that the tournament was suitable for "BEGINNERS". The 92 number tells me the marketing campaign was highly successful. But that egregious 2 number tells me that Larry was right all along. Perhaps it's high time for the CMA to sit back and rethink their policy as to what's truly best for the kids and put a little more emphasis on quality over quantity.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Appalling Stats

Back when I taught for CMA I didn't hand out invitations until the children could at minimum checkmate with a K and R v lone K (generally somewhere around rook level). I think CMA events are best for kids who would be rated somewhere around 400-900 CMA. Before that, they don't know enough to play a proper game, let alone a tournament game. After that, the time controls are too fast to play a proper game.

Edit: and before someone says "blah blah five minute chess is good", or whatever, I mean "proper" as in "can be recorded and later studied"

[Jack Maguire]

Re: Appalling Stats

Back when I taught for CMA I didn't hand out invitations until the children could at minimum checkmate with a K and R v lone K (generally somewhere around rook level). I think CMA events are best for kids who would be rated somewhere around 400-900 CMA. Before that, they don't know enough to play a proper game, let alone a tournament game. After that, the time controls are too fast to play a proper game.

Edit: and before someone says "blah blah five minute chess is good", or whatever, I mean "proper" as in "can be recorded and later studied"

I don't know if the course material has changed since you taught, Tom, but today Rook (& Queen) checkmates are not taught until Queen level (absolutely absurd but true). Which is why there are a plethora of stalemates at the lower grade games.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Appalling Stats

Ya I used to teach the material out of order. ;-)

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Appalling Stats

I don't know if the course material has changed since you taught, Tom, but today Rook (& Queen) checkmates are not taught until Queen level (absolutely absurd but true). Which is why there are a plethora of stalemates at the lower grade games.

Wow! That's pretty bad.

I thaught chess a little bit (not as a profession) and these checkmating techniques were always relatively high on my list. First, you play the losing side while the student plays the winning side. That's good motivation. "Let's see if you can beat me" The kid is always happy when he figures it out.

Secondly, it's relatively simple. There's just three pieces on the board. Any kid can handle three pieces moving around if you take the time to explain properly.

And finally, you can teach a whole lot of things with it: square control, pieces coordination, stalemate. Some very simple concepts such as: in chess, you cannot checkmate a lone king with one piece. You need a minimum of two. And these two pieces have to work together. And, whitout emphasizing it at that point, you're also subtly introducing higher level concepts such as zugzwang.

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: Appalling Stats

Wow! That's pretty bad.

I thaught chess a little bit (not as a profession) and these checkmating techniques were always relatively high on my list. First, you play the losing side while the student plays the winning side. That's good motivation. "Let's see if you can beat me" The kid is always happy when he figures it out.

Secondly, it's relatively simple. There's just three pieces on the board. Any kid can handle three pieces moving around if you take the time to explain properly.

And finally, you can teach a whole lot of things with it: square control, pieces coordination, stalemate. Some very simple concepts such as: in chess, you cannot checkmate a lone king with one piece. You need a minimum of two. And these two pieces have to work together. And, whitout emphasizing it at that point, you're also subtly introducing higher level concepts such as zugzwang.

I like playing the losing side of K + Q vs K endgame to teach them that chess is about alternating moves, not just your own thrilling attacks, You have to take in account what your opponent can do or not do, ending up in stalemate. Give me the Q and I tell them it's mate in 9 and let them count down.